Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many seemingly arrogant atheists would like to sit back and claim that those who label themselves as Christians are closed-minded. Let's think about this... being closed-minded would mean not being willing to accept possibilities that are outside of the norm or outside of what people know of as reality, correct?
If this be true, wouldn't atheists be closed-minded if they feel that it is impossible for dimensions of reality to exist that modern science may not have the capacity to reveal yet, if ever?
The definition of atheist that I go by is not believing in a deity. That leaves everything else wide open for an atheist. If proof was provided for a deity then I would change my mind. To say you are Christian limits a person to not only a deity but a specific one. I see people who identify as Christian as being in a state of knowing and atheist not so much. I don't think Christians are necessarily closed minded though. They may be willing to change their position as well given enough evidence.
If this be true, wouldn't atheists be closed-minded if they feel that it is impossible for dimensions of reality to exist that modern science may not have the capacity to reveal yet, if ever?
If science cannot reveal something, why should we believe it?
I am not saying that science is all knowing, can answer everything, or is a perfect process. But, let's examine your statement a bit.
Your claim is that science cannot REVEAL something. Which would mean that this thing cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled, that it cannot be measured by any tool or instrument, and does not interact with the physical world in any way. After all, if it interacted with the physical world we would be able to measure its interactions and effects somehow.
that means that you are accepting some sort of religious claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Nothing. Why would you do that? Does it make sense to you that you should accept any claim with zero evidence? If so, do you believe my claim that there is a giant purple one eyed panda that licks all of the food in your refrigerator before you eat it? I don't have any evidence for this, and science cannot reveal anything about this creature (it is invisible, weightless, and doesn't leave any saliva behind after it licks your leftover pork chops), but I can assure you that it is there.
Are you close minded because you don't accept this being?
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
Many seemingly arrogant atheists would like to sit back and claim that those who label themselves as Christians are closed-minded. Let's think about this... being closed-minded would mean not being willing to accept possibilities that are outside of the norm or outside of what people know of as reality, correct?
If this be true, wouldn't atheists be closed-minded if they feel that it is impossible for dimensions of reality to exist that modern science may not have the capacity to reveal yet, if ever?
Scientists have always accepted possibilities that were "outside the norm" - if there is evidence for them, or if provisionally assuming them leads to fruitful inquiry.
An example of the former is continental drift - my college geology professor used to say that when he started his bachelor's program, only "kooks" even talked about it - by the time he got his PhD, he had to know it cold. The difference was the findings of the IGY 1957-58. As soon as there was a plausible mechanism for moving continents around, something that was laughed at became standard theory. This changed occurred within 12 years.
An example of the latter is string theory, a seriously weird idea that is an active field of research, even though no firm evidence of actual strings has been found. Yet the mathematics it has produced has been useful enough that research into strings continues.
Exactly who is it that claims that everything we need to know about the universe was written down 3000 years ago?
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
What would be the difference between a universe created by an intelligent designer and a universe not so created? Can you design an experiment or develop a set of observations that would definitively show which kind of universe we live in?
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design.
In principle as an atheist I believe that anything is possible.
But, like you, I don't believe everything that might be true, is true. You can't technically make a knowledge claim that leprechauns don't exist. You can't prove that they don't. But you see no good and valid reason and no evidence that they DO exist ... so for practical purposes you believe AS IF they did not and cannot exist.
You do this about all sorts of things. Unicorns, tooth fairies, Santa Claus, Shangri La, and countless other things. You simply won't do it about one thing -- gods -- and most probably only about one particular god -- yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Nearly all atheists ARE agnostics and don't make 100% knowledge claims. I certainly don't. But as mentioned above, I do decline to believe in something simply because I don't have absolute knowledge about it.
As for "many logical arguments", no, I don't think so. There are many flawed intellectual / theoretical arguments for it, but I have yet to see one that passes muster. When one "considers the complexity of DNA" they are making an argument from incredulity. DNA is undeniably amazing and complex but one must look, not at what we do not currently understand or know for sure about it or what seems intuitive to us about it, but at what we DO know and understand about it. Clearly we are here having this conversation along with our respective DNAs, so however incredulous you may be, there is far more likely to be a natural process for this outcome than one that arose essentially because of magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
You are leaving an important facet of this "absolute refusal" out ... which is that the only refusal is a requirement first to see any valid and actual evidence for the things you feel we should be credulous about. It is a virtue to refuse to base one's beliefs on conjecture and ignorance and superstition.
100% of the time when theists decry our "absolute refusal" they are wanting us to be "open" not to evidence but to unsubstantiated (and often unsubstantiatable) possibilities that just so happen to coincide with their asserted dogma of choice.
It is possible that ID of some sort occurred; just as it is possible that leprechauns of some sort exist or have existed. It is just that there is no actual basis to think it remotely likely and no one has yet presented any actual evidence to substantiate it.
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
You are changing the stance from your OP considerably.
At first you talked about accepting things that modern science could not reveal, now you are talking about arguments for intelligent design. These are two very different, and contradictory things.
It's your thread though, so I will go with your topic change. Please present your strongest argument in favor of intelligent design. Please realize that by proposing an argument and letting people critique it, you are using the scientific method. Don't worry about that though. As long as your argument is more compelling than the Theory of Evolution, I am sure that most if not all atheists on this board will become ardent supporters of ID.
What would be the difference between a universe created by an intelligent designer and a universe not so created? Can you design an experiment or develop a set of observations that would definitively show which kind of universe we live in?
It's something of a pointless question because one has to know why the universe was designed. If, however, we are postulating that it was designed for us, we would have expected one where we could live everywhere and not on a hostile ball of rock that seems to want to kill us half the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
You are changing the stance from your OP considerably.
At first you talked about accepting things that modern science could not reveal, now you are talking about arguments for intelligent design. These are two very different, and contradictory things.
It's your thread though, so I will go with your topic change. Please present your strongest argument in favor of intelligent design. Please realize that by proposing an argument and letting people critique it, you are using the scientific method. Don't worry about that though. As long as your argument is more compelling than the Theory of Evolution, I am sure that most if not all atheists on this board will become ardent supporters of ID.
I eagerly await your proofs.
Yes. In principle proof or evidence of a designer in the universe or the world is ok if the evidence is good. Atheists are not hostile to the idea - why should we be? Anthony Flew became persuaded by the argument, though it turned out to be unsound. In fact all the arguments for Order in the Universe, Universe/Life impossible without a creator/designer, I/C and indeed the 'Goldilocks zone' all fail. So far.
It is, perhaps, the best case theism (or deism) has. Even Dawkins said that a case could be made (1)- though it wasn't one that he accepted. Nor do I. We invite the poster to produce his best case.
(1) notoriously quoted out of context by some Creationist propagandists who claimed that he was converting.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-09-2015 at 04:52 AM..
Many seemingly arrogant atheists would like to sit back and claim that those who label themselves as Christians are closed-minded. Let's think about this... being closed-minded would mean not being willing to accept possibilities that are outside of the norm or outside of what people know of as reality, correct?
If this be true, wouldn't atheists be closed-minded if they feel that it is impossible for dimensions of reality to exist that modern science may not have the capacity to reveal yet, if ever?
The very premise of this thread is ridiculous. Be definition, an atheist is a person that believes there are no gods. An agnostic believes that the existence of a god (or gods) cannot be proven. Therefore, atheism is a statement of belief and agnosticism is a statement of evidence. There is nothing in the definition of atheism that says anything about willingness to accept any possibilities.
If you had done some reading in this forum before starting this thread, you would surely have seen the thread where a number of atheists confirmed that there are beliefs in ghosts, spirits, aliens, etc., among them, thereby negating your claim that they are, as a group, close-minded to the possibility of other dimensions. The scientific community has yet to provide confirmation of ghosts or spirits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
